Suchapp

Blockchain-enabled, multi-channel messaging platform.

About Suchapp

SuchApp is a messaging platform that plans to compete with major communication services by using a crowd-sourced funding model, in order to acquire users and market the platform aggressively. SuchApp will also differentiate itself from its largest competitors by introducing a loyalty rewards program embedded within the application. Additionally, SuchApp plans to integrate SPS tokens into exclusive debit/gift cards.

Token Sale Use of Blockchain

Product

2.4
Product
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.

Product

The sector of communication platforms is exceedingly competitive. Convincing users to migrate from one such platform to another is not a simple task. The long list of features that SuchApp plans to implement is not directly related to blockchain technology, and most features could easily be incorporated into existing platforms. However, SuchApp discusses a loyalty program, where “every Group Administrator has an option to create and launch their own custom loyalty membership program for their group”. Although not significantly revolutionary, it is a feature that separates SuchApp from most other messaging platforms that do no incorporate blockchain technology.

Product Whitepaper

Use of Blockchain

1.6
Use of Blockchain
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.

Use of Blockchain

SPS is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as a means of exchange, as well as in rewards through loyalty programs in the SuchApp ecosystem. There is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds and the platform is essentially centralized. The GitHub page is not provided for assessment of blockchain development.

Use of Blockchain Roadmap

Whitepaper

3.4
Whitepaper
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is fairly long at 44 pages. The technology plan is discussed effectively, with a sufficient level of detail. The business plan is also presented in fairly high detail and includes content such as market research and user acquisition strategy. Overall the whitepaper is comprehensive and manages to balance technical details with readability.

Whitepaper Compliance

Roadmap

2.2
Roadmap
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2011 to April of 2019 and contains low levels of detail. Milestones are presented without descriptions of what each entails. Milestones reached thus far include the formation of the organization, iOS/Android/web development, and the development of the alpha version of the SuchApp platform. The beta version of SuchApp is planned to launch in July of 2018.

Roadmap Company and Team

Compliance

2.4
Compliance
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a detailed disclaimer section. It is explicitly stated that SPS tokens should not be considered securities: “white paper is intended for informational purposes only and is not considered a prospectus offering any kinds of securities or related products”. The language is seemingly professional and the level of detail is moderate. Residents from the US and China are asked to not participate in the token sale. It is unknown whether KYC will be used.

Compliance Token Sale

Company and Team

2.6
Company and Team
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.

Company and Team

The 7 team members are listed in the whitepaper, along with their profile pictures and short descriptions of their professional backgrounds. Links to social media accounts are not provided. However, a manual search (of a small sample size) in LinkedIn shows that, for most, the professional experience matches the bio description provided in the website/whitepaper. The CTO was unable to be found on LinkedIn. Also, the CEO is the senior vice president of a separate organization. Thus, commitment to this project is questionable and the competency of some team members is unverifiable. The skill set of the team is geared towards business, as opposed to technology.

Company and Team Product

Token Sale

2.2
Token Sale
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.

Token Sale

The total number of SPS tokens is 2.5 billion (50% is for sale, 0.2% is for the bounty program, 21.6% is reserved, 12% is for the founders, and 16% is for new contributers). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $40MM USD, where 1 SPS = $0.05 USD. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018.

Product

The sector of communication platforms is exceedingly competitive. Convincing users to migrate from one such platform to another is not a simple task. The long list of features that SuchApp plans to implement is not directly related to blockchain technology, and most features could easily be incorporated into existing platforms. However, SuchApp discusses a loyalty program, where “every Group Administrator has an option to create and launch their own custom loyalty membership program for their group”. Although not significantly revolutionary, it is a feature that separates SuchApp from most other messaging platforms that do no incorporate blockchain technology.

Category Breakdown
Readiness

Is the product ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Appeal

How appealing is the product? How good or necessary is it? Does it have a distinct edge?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Target User Base

Is it mass market or niche?

4.0
N/A
4 - Large audience / wide market.
Competition

Are there many other similar solutions or is this one of just a few, or even one of a kind?

2.0
N/A
2 - Quite a few / somewhat better competitors.
Innovation

How innovative or inventive is the product, either conceptually or technologically?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but nothing outstanding.
Product Score:
2.4

Use of Blockchain

SPS is an ERC20 compliant token and is used as a means of exchange, as well as in rewards through loyalty programs in the SuchApp ecosystem. There is no significant need for a custom token other than to generate funds and the platform is essentially centralized. The GitHub page is not provided for assessment of blockchain development.

Category Breakdown
Blockchain Development

Is blockchain technology essential? Does it make the solution significantly different and better?

1.0
N/A
1 - None; simple Ethereum based coin.
Disruptive Blockchain Advantage

How disruptive is the introduction of blockchain technology into the product's market space?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, but not much.
Need for a Custom Token (vs. BTC or ETH)

Is the token essential or could it be done just as well or better with fiat or Bitcoin?

2.0
N/A
2 - Some, mainly network effect.
System Decentralization (besides token)

How decentralized is the system architecture other than the token (e.g., data collection, storage, access, and use, or decision making processes, etc.)?

1.0
N/A
1 - Essentially centralized.
Contribution to Blockchain Ecosystem

How compelling is the solution's contribution to the evolution of blockchain infrastructure and economy?

2.0
N/A
2 - Meh, okay.
Use of Blockchain Score:
1.6

Whitepaper

The whitepaper is fairly long at 44 pages. The technology plan is discussed effectively, with a sufficient level of detail. The business plan is also presented in fairly high detail and includes content such as market research and user acquisition strategy. Overall the whitepaper is comprehensive and manages to balance technical details with readability.

Category Breakdown
Comprehensiveness

Does it cover the full scope of the problem and solution?

3.0
N/A
3 - Covers most key issues; a few holes.
Readability

Is it easy enough to understand?

4.0
N/A
4 - Easy to read and understand.
Transparency

Does it candidly describe and disclose where the project now stands, how much exists and how much still needs to be done, etc.?

4.0
N/A
4 - Informative disclosure.
Business Plan Presentation

Does it contain a viable, comprehensive business plan?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Technology Presentation

Does it present a well thought out technological architecture? Does it address implementational challenges?

3.0
N/A
3 - More information required.
Whitepaper Score:
3.4

Roadmap

The roadmap presented in the whitepaper spans from 2011 to April of 2019 and contains low levels of detail. Milestones are presented without descriptions of what each entails. Milestones reached thus far include the formation of the organization, iOS/Android/web development, and the development of the alpha version of the SuchApp platform. The beta version of SuchApp is planned to launch in July of 2018.

Category Breakdown
Concreteness

Is there a concrete and practical development plan (vs. just a conceptual vision)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Vague, noncommittal.
Feasibility

Is the development plan realistic? Is it based on reasonable goals and timelines?

3.0
N/A
3 - Optimistic.
Vision

Is there a larger, long-term vision?

2.0
N/A
2 - Riding the current wave.
Dependencies (services or capabilities)

How available, operational, or trusted are the other systems or capabilities on which the project relies?

2.0
N/A
2 - Not fully available or trustworthy.
Current Position

Where is the project now, relative to its vision and plans?

2.0
N/A
2 - Critical obstacles ahead.
Roadmap Score:
2.2

Compliance

The whitepaper contains a detailed disclaimer section. It is explicitly stated that SPS tokens should not be considered securities: “white paper is intended for informational purposes only and is not considered a prospectus offering any kinds of securities or related products”. The language is seemingly professional and the level of detail is moderate. Residents from the US and China are asked to not participate in the token sale. It is unknown whether KYC will be used.

Category Breakdown
Token Utility (value through usage)

How much use is there for the token itself (regardless of its value as an investment vehicle)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal or contrived.
Token as Security (tradable instrument)

How valuable is the token as an investment vehicle or financial instrument?

3.0
N/A
3 - Partly; compliance not fully assured.
Token/Smart-Contract Readiness

Is the blockchain infrastructure of the project ready for use? Is there a working prototype or MVP? How long until it is operational?

2.0
N/A
2 - Proof of concept or test platform.
Attention to Compliance Issues

How much attention is given to compliance (via token and ecosystem design, token sale participation, etc.)? Is this issue addressed directly and coherently?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minimal, superficial or hackneyed.
Legal Review/Risk Assessment

What kind of legal documentation (reviews or agreements) and risk assessment are provided?

3.0
N/A
3 - Semi-professional (e.g. Howey Test)
Compliance Score:
2.4

Company and Team

The 7 team members are listed in the whitepaper, along with their profile pictures and short descriptions of their professional backgrounds. Links to social media accounts are not provided. However, a manual search (of a small sample size) in LinkedIn shows that, for most, the professional experience matches the bio description provided in the website/whitepaper. The CTO was unable to be found on LinkedIn. Also, the CEO is the senior vice president of a separate organization. Thus, commitment to this project is questionable and the competency of some team members is unverifiable. The skill set of the team is geared towards business, as opposed to technology.

Category Breakdown
Company Stage and Foundation

Is the company already established? Has it raised funds before? Is it mature?

3.0
N/A
3 - Company structure in place.
Background of Lead Team Members

Do we know who they are? Do they have LinkedIn profiles? Do they have solid, relevant backgrounds?

2.0
N/A
2 - Fragmented or inconclusive.
Team Assembly and Commitment

Is a solid, fully committed core team in place? Do they have online (e.g. LinkedIn) profiles showing sufficient relevant experience? Is their participation transparent?

3.0
N/A
3 - Mostly assembled and committed.
Team Skill Set Relevance

Does the amount of talent and skill in each area seem to fit the project requirements?

3.0
N/A
3 - Correlated to project requirements.
Team Skill Set Balance

Is the team well-rounded (biz/tech/blockchain)? Is there sufficient talent and skill in all areas of required development?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat skewed.
Company and Team Score:
2.6

Token Sale

The total number of SPS tokens is 2.5 billion (50% is for sale, 0.2% is for the bounty program, 21.6% is reserved, 12% is for the founders, and 16% is for new contributers). The allocation of funds is described in fair detail. The soft cap is unspecified and the hard cap is $40MM USD, where 1 SPS = $0.05 USD. The token sale takes place on March 1, 2018.

Category Breakdown
Raise Amount Max

Is there a clear cap? Is the maximum raise amount modestly sufficient (as opposed to either greedy or insufficient)?

2.0
N/A
2 - Somewhat greedy or unrelated to plans.
Raise Amount Min

Is the minimum raise reasonable considering the development plan? Are there raise-amount dependent milestones?

1.0
N/A
1 - None or nonsensical.
Fund Allocation

Is fund distribution and allocation reasonable and justified?

3.0
N/A
3 - Rough estimates, but sensible.
Token Allocation

Is the ratio of tokens sold to those kept reasonable? Does it prevent the company from having too much control?

3.0
N/A
3 - Sufficient company/community interest balance.
Media Presence and Following

Is the sale being talked about in Reddit, Bitcointalk, Social Media, Medium, etc.? Is information available and accessible? Is there interest?

2.0
N/A
2 - Minor exposure and interest, or ambivalent reception.
Token Sale Score:
2.2

Use this code to share the ratings on your website